Turning down the volume on TV commercials

[manifold]

I agree with the mute button option. There's also the bathroom break option. The Tivo option.


Are people really soooooooooooo helpless they need the government to tell the big bad speakers to shush up?

Why does everyone assume everyone else has a remote?

Are you kidding me? First of all, no one made an absolute statement that "EVERYONE" has a remote, except for you.

But the majority of TV owners? I'm not sure you could possibly argue against that.

My job requires me to be inside people's homes. I've probably been inside more homes than most people here. I've never seen a TV that didn't have a remote for it. This is America, Ang. That is pretty much people's requirement when it comes to TV viewing.

Paulie,

This is simply one of those times when reality clashes with ideals. I understand your point on this subject completely and in a perfect world I'd agree with you wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, when corporations abuse a particular freedom, they run the risk of having that freedom curtailed. There is no excuse for blasting the shit out of people to try to get their attention like that. It's fucking lame. And it's pretty disingenuous to suggest that all everyone has to do is stop watching tv and it will correct itself. We both know that's not going to happen. This is hardly a financial imposition on business. Considering what I know about your political views, I find it odd that you'd pick this particular matter offensive enough to rail against.

 

[naomibee]

all i can say is (ITS ABOUT TIME!!!)....

 

[Paulie]

Why does everyone assume everyone else has a remote?

Are you kidding me? First of all, no one made an absolute statement that "EVERYONE" has a remote, except for you.

But the majority of TV owners? I'm not sure you could possibly argue against that.

My job requires me to be inside people's homes. I've probably been inside more homes than most people here. I've never seen a TV that didn't have a remote for it. This is America, Ang. That is pretty much people's requirement when it comes to TV viewing.

Paulie,

This is simply one of those times when reality clashes with ideals. I understand your point on this subject completely and in a perfect world I'd agree with you wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, when corporations abuse a particular freedom, they run the risk of having that freedom curtailed. There is no excuse for blasting the shit out of people to try to get their attention like that. It's fucking lame. And it's pretty disingenuous to suggest that all everyone has to do is stop watching tv and it will correct itself. We both know that's not going to happen. This is hardly a financial imposition on business. Considering what I know about your political views, I find it odd that you'd pick this particular matter offensive enough to rail against.

My political views are EXACTLY why I'm railing against this. My views are about getting government the hell out of insignificant shit such as this.

And yes, in a perfect world, people wouldn't give a horse's nutsack about the volume of a commercial. As if it's not bad enough that people actually care this much about it to begin with, they actually want the government to spend time getting involved in it.

Meanwhile, we're still not adding jobs, we're on the precipice of massive inflation, our current budget deficit is starting to look like what our entire national debt looked like in the not-that-distant past, we're ramping up war efforts in another country, and taxation may very well be about to be getting increasingly out of hand.

But let's spend time regulating commercial volume levels so we can more comfortably bury our heads in the sand and ignore what matters most while we veg out and watch American Idol in more relative peace.

You'll have to forgive me for finding that to be fucking ridiculous.

 

[manifold]

I forgive you.

 

[Paulie]

I forgive you.

Thanks!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

My political views are EXACTLY why I'm railing against this. My views are about getting government the hell out of insignificant shit such as this.

And yes, in a perfect world, people wouldn't give a horse's nutsack about the volume of a commercial. As if it's not bad enough that people actually care this much about it to begin with, they actually want the government to spend time getting involved in it.

Meanwhile, we're still not adding jobs, we're on the precipice of massive inflation, our current budget deficit is starting to look like what our entire national debt looked like in the not-that-distant past, we're ramping up war efforts in another country, and taxation may very well be about to be getting increasingly out of hand.

But let's spend time regulating commercial volume levels so we can more comfortably bury our heads in the sand and ignore what matters most while we veg out and watch American Idol in more relative peace.

You'll have to forgive me for finding that to be fucking ridiculous.

You know what paulie is right. Even if i find loud commercials very annoying when i have to watch them. The government has way to much that it can't handle already on its plate to try and deal with this.

 

[Care4all]

My political views are EXACTLY why I'm railing against this. My views are about getting government the hell out of insignificant shit such as this.

And yes, in a perfect world, people wouldn't give a horse's nutsack about the volume of a commercial. As if it's not bad enough that people actually care this much about it to begin with, they actually want the government to spend time getting involved in it.

Meanwhile, we're still not adding jobs, we're on the precipice of massive inflation, our current budget deficit is starting to look like what our entire national debt looked like in the not-that-distant past, we're ramping up war efforts in another country, and taxation may very well be about to be getting increasingly out of hand.

But let's spend time regulating commercial volume levels so we can more comfortably bury our heads in the sand and ignore what matters most while we veg out and watch American Idol in more relative peace.

You'll have to forgive me for finding that to be fucking ridiculous.

You know what paulie is right. Even if i find loud commercials very annoying when i have to watch them. The government has way to much that it can't handle already on its plate to try and deal with this.

That would be fine IF THE GVT were not already involved....but they are the ones who ALREADY gave permission via LAW, for the commercials to be as loud as the loudest part of a normal program....all that is being asked is to "right" the "wrong" that the government already regulated imo.

 

[Paulie]

oh waaahhh waaaaahhh my TV viewing is being disrupted for 60 seconds with extra volume, how will I ever be able to cope!!

 

[Anguille]

I've never seen a TV that didn't have a remote for it. This is America, Ang. That is pretty much people's requirement when it comes to TV viewing.

Mrs Kravitz does not have a remote.

 

[Care4all]

oh waaahhh waaaaahhh my TV viewing is being disrupted for 60 seconds with extra volume, how will I ever be able to cope!!

so now you are in to lying with a whine in there, to support your stance? why be so intellectually dishonest paul?

(IS it really for only 60 seconds (a day implied) or is it about 2-3 minutes of commercials for every 7 minutes of program?)

The government IS ALREADY involved with regulating this....yes, already involved.

NO ONE is asking them to get involved in an area they have not already been....to imply such is simply dishonest....at least if i read correctly that they already regulate the volume of commercials and a cap of the highest volume in the previous program is in regulations now.

Asking them to revise this ALREADY regulated volume level is not in any way getting the gvt to do something NEW for you or GROWING gvt control....they already have the control with regulations in place.

 

[Paulie]

oh waaahhh waaaaahhh my TV viewing is being disrupted for 60 seconds with extra volume, how will I ever be able to cope!!

so now you are in to lying with a whine in there, to support your stance? why be so intellectually dishonest paul?

(IS it really for only 60 seconds (a day implied) or is it about 2-3 minutes of commercials for every 7 minutes of program?)

The government IS ALREADY involved with regulating this....yes, already involved.

NO ONE is asking them to get involved in an area they have not already been....to imply such is simply dishonest....at least if i read correctly that they already regulate the volume of commercials and a cap of the highest volume in the previous program is in regulations now.

Asking them to revise this ALREADY regulated volume level is not in any way getting the gvt to do something NEW for you or GROWING gvt control....they already have the control with regulations in place.

Care I don't know what channels you're watching, but on my TV it's not every single commercial that does this.

Every once in a while there's a commercial that gets REALLY loud, but the vast majority of them are not guilty of this.

So yes, it's a random occasional 60 seconds that you have to put up with.

 

[Paulie]

I've never seen a TV that didn't have a remote for it. This is America, Ang. That is pretty much people's requirement when it comes to TV viewing.

Mrs Kravitz does not have a remote.

Sure Ang, I believe you.

 

[Anguille]

I've never seen a TV that didn't have a remote for it. This is America, Ang. That is pretty much people's requirement when it comes to TV viewing.

Mrs Kravitz does not have a remote.

Sure Ang, I believe you.

Actually, until Sept, when Anguille finally got around to installing the converter box for the new broadcasting system so her guests could watch TV, Angi found she had to buy a new (second hand) TV because hers was so old it did did not even have the right kind of connectors. Until Sept Angi had never owned a remote. Paulie says he has been in many homes and he has never seen one where the TV did not have a remote. Perhaps because Paulie has been in many homes where the inhabitants can afford to pay other people to paint them, Paulie has not experienced being in homes where people cannot even afford paint, much less newer TVs which have remotes.

Anguille, in the course of volunteer work, political canvassing and voter registration drives has been in many such homes.

Paulie and many anti government regulation people here poo-poo the complaints of people with the luxury of a mute button on a remote, some even claim the loud ads are not an annoyance. But these people don't even want to consider that it's an even worse annoyance for some of the poorest in our nation. The elderly,the disabled, the poor or anyone without a remote all must jump out of their seats to turn down the volume when these ads come on.

Care is correct when she says government's powers are not being extended when the current laws are amended. And in this case, the amended legislation will be of the most benefit to the most disadvantaged and beneficial to all who watch TV which is almost all Americans,
I'm all for it!!

 

[manifold]

The FCC already regulates television, including commercial volume levels.

Arguing against this bill on the basis that "Government shouldn't be wasting it's time like this" is akin to arguing that the FCC (a government agency) should not be subject to congressional oversight.

And that's just ridiculous.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The FCC already regulates television, including commercial volume levels.

Arguing against this bill on the basis that "Government shouldn't be wasting it's time like this" is akin to arguing that the FCC (a government agency) should not be subject to congressional oversight.

And that's just ridiculous.

That analogy doesn't make any sense. It's more like arguing that the FCC shouldn't exist at all.

 

[Paulie]

Mrs Kravitz does not have a remote.

Sure Ang, I believe you.

Actually, until Sept, when Anguille finally got around to installing the converter box for the new broadcasting system so her guests could watch TV, Angi found she had to buy a new (second hand) TV because hers was so old it did did not even have the right kind of connectors. Until Sept Angi had never owned a remote. Paulie says he has been in many homes and he has never seen one where the TV did not have a remote. Perhaps because Paulie has been in many homes where the inhabitants can afford to pay other people to paint them, Paulie has not experienced being in homes where people cannot even afford paint, much less newer TVs which have remotes.

Anguille, in the course of volunteer work, political canvassing and voter registration drives has been in many such homes.

Paulie and many anti government regulation people here poo-poo the complaints of people with the luxury of a mute button on a remote, some even claim the loud ads are not an annoyance. But these people don't even want to consider that it's an even worse annoyance for some of the poorest in our nation. The elderly,the disabled, the poor or anyone without a remote all must jump out of their seats to turn down the volume when these ads come on.

Care is correct when she says government's powers are not being extended when the current laws are amended. And in this case, the amended legislation will be of the most benefit to the most disadvantaged and beneficial to all who watch TV which is almost all Americans,
I'm all for it!!

All that when you could have just said "I think that people who pay to have their houses painted can afford a TV remote"?

That probably makes sense to you on the surface Ang, but I've painted many-a-place that in no way revolved around the inhabitants of the units having some kind of significant amount of disposable income.

I've painted some pretty poor ass places, Ang. One, for instance, was an apartment complex that was riddled with cock roaches. I can't even begin to describ the filth. We were simply there to clean the place up for other subsequent renovations.

TV's still had remotes though.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

My political views are EXACTLY why I'm railing against this. My views are about getting government the hell out of insignificant shit such as this.

And yes, in a perfect world, people wouldn't give a horse's nutsack about the volume of a commercial. As if it's not bad enough that people actually care this much about it to begin with, they actually want the government to spend time getting involved in it.

Meanwhile, we're still not adding jobs, we're on the precipice of massive inflation, our current budget deficit is starting to look like what our entire national debt looked like in the not-that-distant past, we're ramping up war efforts in another country, and taxation may very well be about to be getting increasingly out of hand.

But let's spend time regulating commercial volume levels so we can more comfortably bury our heads in the sand and ignore what matters most while we veg out and watch American Idol in more relative peace.

You'll have to forgive me for finding that to be fucking ridiculous.

You know what paulie is right. Even if i find loud commercials very annoying when i have to watch them. The government has way to much that it can't handle already on its plate to try and deal with this.

That would be fine IF THE GVT were not already involved....but they are the ones who ALREADY gave permission via LAW, for the commercials to be as loud as the loudest part of a normal program....all that is being asked is to "right" the "wrong" that the government already regulated imo.

Tell em to fire all the people in charge of that department and get their hands out of it then.

Probably save us millions every year if they did....and those millions could go toward providing health care to all americans while not raising taxes on union health care plans and workers like me who make 5-figure salaries.

 

[Anguille]

Sure Ang, I believe you.

Actually, until Sept, when Anguille finally got around to installing the converter box for the new broadcasting system so her guests could watch TV, Angi found she had to buy a new (second hand) TV because hers was so old it did did not even have the right kind of connectors. Until Sept Angi had never owned a remote. Paulie says he has been in many homes and he has never seen one where the TV did not have a remote. Perhaps because Paulie has been in many homes where the inhabitants can afford to pay other people to paint them, Paulie has not experienced being in homes where people cannot even afford paint, much less newer TVs which have remotes.

Anguille, in the course of volunteer work, political canvassing and voter registration drives has been in many such homes.

Paulie and many anti government regulation people here poo-poo the complaints of people with the luxury of a mute button on a remote, some even claim the loud ads are not an annoyance. But these people don't even want to consider that it's an even worse annoyance for some of the poorest in our nation. The elderly,the disabled, the poor or anyone without a remote all must jump out of their seats to turn down the volume when these ads come on.

Care is correct when she says government's powers are not being extended when the current laws are amended. And in this case, the amended legislation will be of the most benefit to the most disadvantaged and beneficial to all who watch TV which is almost all Americans,
I'm all for it!!

All that when you could have just said "I think that people who pay to have their houses painted can afford a TV remote"?

That probably makes sense to you on the surface Ang, but I've painted many-a-place that in no way revolved around the inhabitants of the units having some kind of significant amount of disposable income.

I've painted some pretty poor ass places, Ang. One, for instance, was an apartment complex that was riddled with cock roaches. I can't even begin to describ the filth. We were simply there to clean the place up for other subsequent renovations.

TV's still had remotes though.

You're still an elitist, Paulie, on the question of denying government protection of the eardrums of the least fortunate.

 

[Paulie]

Actually, until Sept, when Anguille finally got around to installing the converter box for the new broadcasting system so her guests could watch TV, Angi found she had to buy a new (second hand) TV because hers was so old it did did not even have the right kind of connectors. Until Sept Angi had never owned a remote. Paulie says he has been in many homes and he has never seen one where the TV did not have a remote. Perhaps because Paulie has been in many homes where the inhabitants can afford to pay other people to paint them, Paulie has not experienced being in homes where people cannot even afford paint, much less newer TVs which have remotes.

Anguille, in the course of volunteer work, political canvassing and voter registration drives has been in many such homes.

Paulie and many anti government regulation people here poo-poo the complaints of people with the luxury of a mute button on a remote, some even claim the loud ads are not an annoyance. But these people don't even want to consider that it's an even worse annoyance for some of the poorest in our nation. The elderly,the disabled, the poor or anyone without a remote all must jump out of their seats to turn down the volume when these ads come on.

Care is correct when she says government's powers are not being extended when the current laws are amended. And in this case, the amended legislation will be of the most benefit to the most disadvantaged and beneficial to all who watch TV which is almost all Americans,
I'm all for it!!

All that when you could have just said "I think that people who pay to have their houses painted can afford a TV remote"?

That probably makes sense to you on the surface Ang, but I've painted many-a-place that in no way revolved around the inhabitants of the units having some kind of significant amount of disposable income.

I've painted some pretty poor ass places, Ang. One, for instance, was an apartment complex that was riddled with cock roaches. I can't even begin to describ the filth. We were simply there to clean the place up for other subsequent renovations.

TV's still had remotes though.

You're still an elitist, Paulie, on the question of denying government protection of the eardrums of the least fortunate.

You're REALLY going to play that card?

Dude, how fucking loud do you have your TV turned up?? Protecting eardrums?? I'm not sure how else to respond to that other than to just laugh, because I've never once heard a commercial be so loud that it actually caused my eardrums pain.

You're REALLLLLLY reaching, Ang. Like REAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLY.

 

[Paulie]

We're going from "inconvenience" because "we shouldn't have to listen to it" ... to "protecting eardrums".

This gets better everyday